Comm105 midterm

popular notions of arguing

intrapersonal conflict, rather than group dispute. verbal hostility, emotional escalation, competition, socially inappropriate and risky

cultural views on argumentation

feminist and Afrocentric approaches. they emphasize collectivism, relationships, interconnectedness, and inclusivity. Eurocentric roots of popular notions of arguments

persuasion v argumentation

argument focuses on fact and providing logical reasoning; it is more cut and dry. Persuasion has a lot more to do with feelings; can involve more than opinion

Example of persuasion - music videos. Anxiety by Docheii is mostly persuasion by using emotions and visuals to persuade you into buying the video/her brand

Definitions of ethics

the term we use to indicate the moral choices a person makes regarding his or her behavior

ethics of argumentation: questions of right or wrong and whether the arguer’s actions are socially appropriate

ethical standards for evaluating argumentation

clarity - easily comprehended

honesty - speaker is well-informed and no hidden motives

efficiency - does not waste times or use shortcuts

relevance - personally relevant to greatest number of people

Characteristics of the three perspectives on argument (logical, dialectical, rhetorical)

rhetorical - how arguments are made and interpreted, content and context of an argument, audience are decision makers with choices for acting

dialectical - structure of conversations, give-and-take, principles and procedures used, audience is not separate - all participants are active

logical - formal rules for sound arguments, mathematical symbols conversion, sees audience as rationalists with sound cause-and-effect reasoning

characteristics and examples of a field of argumentation

a social or professional context in which people argue to make decisions or build a body of knowledge (space of communication to argue topics)

ex could be medical (they have their own jargon, subject matter, and standards of proof to talk about)

definition, types, and examples of presumption

Presumption: the status quo situation; a situational advantage benefiting one side in an argument (what the society presumes as true or good… dominant view) favors no change

Artificial presumption: when one side is arbitrarily given the figurative ground (the advantage) up front ex - innocent until proven guilty (assumed until shown otherwise)

Natural presumption: when one side holds the figurative ground (the advantage) based on observations of the natural order (the cultural norms, beliefs, practices) of a field of argumentation (public opinion) ex -most people believe climate change is happening, so to argue there is a need to address it holds presumption

Definition of burden of proof

Burden of proof is the obligation of the complaining party to show that there is enough evidence to support their call for change ( goes against presumption and public opinion. Must prove your side because it is not the status quo)

Definition and example of a prima facie case

Prima facie case: an argument that “at first sight” or “on the face of it” is sufficient to justify change. a simple, straightforward argument that puts a burden on other side. ex- the lady with the pay summaries from work had enough to make a case

Definitions of topical agreement

all sides agree to a proposition that captures the essence of the issue to be argued

Inherency (also see Ch. 9 in the textbook)

the societal structure or attitude causing the present problematic state of belief or behavior to exist (opposite of coincidence)

why we do or do not believe something is probably true, uses cause and effect reasoning

Definition of attitudinal versus structural inherency

-structural inherency: when the cause of a problem is found in institutionalized behaviors, rules, and laws

-attitudinal inherency: when a problem is caused by informal but accepted beliefs, opinions, values, and emotions

ex. smoking laws that block until a certain age vs the belief that it helps with stress

How to distinguish value, factual, and policy propositions from each other

Factual propositions: can be proven; there are correct and incorrect ways of understanding a problem and its possible solutions. Examples: police detectives, scientists

Value propositions: cannot be proven as true or false; evaluation of problems and solutions is based on criteria of value, morality, personal taste, opinion, belief

policy propositions: a call to action, usually use the word should, urge the audience to make a change

Attributes and functions of propositions

pinpoints specific area of disagreement, places burden of proof on the advocate, specifies whether the problem is a belief, behavior, or both

truth value, structure,

Difference between denotative and connotative meanings (and examples)

Words have denotative (literal/dictionary) and connotative (informal/culturally implied) levels of meaning

"home" denotes a place of residence but connotes warmth and security

Rules for defining and phrasing terms within propositions

Inclusionary rule: Phrase definitions to include what appropriately falls within the scope of the term’s meaning.

Exclusionary rule: Phrase definitions to exclude what does not fall appropriately within the term’s scope of meaning.

Adaptation rule: Phrase definitions to fit the field and audience’s range of understanding and experience

Neutrality rule: Phrase definitions with emotionally neutral language

Clarity rule: Definitions should make the meaning of a term more clear, not less, and should avoid circular reasoning.

Definition by example

-providing concrete, representative instances

Definition by operation

used for clarifying the meaning of a term by explaining it as the result of a series of steps

Definition by authority

Using a definition by a source deemed reputable within a field like using a textbook such as McGraww-Hill

Definition by synonym

using denotatively or connotatively more familiar terms to explain the meaning of a term used in a proposition.

Definition by function

the advocate elaborates upon the initial proposition by specifying how something works or functions

Terministic screens

the filters—formed by language, symbols, and terminology—through which we perceive, interpret, and act upon the world. These "screens" function like lenses, selecting, deflecting, and reflecting reality based on the words we use, ultimately directing our attention toward specific interpretations while hiding others

Definition of warrant

reasoning showing the connection between claim and grounds

explains what warrants jumping from the grounds to the claim (conclusion)

If this (ground/observation), why this (claim/conclusion)?

How to identify a warrant when given an example claim and ground

Ground: A video has emerged of an NFL player punching and knocking out his fiancée in an elevator.

Claim: This player should be suspended for several games.

Warrant: (would explain why there is a several game suspension over other options) precedent? Rule-book? Severity?

Meaning of definitional claim and examples of it

focuses on how something (a type or category of an act, individual, object, or idea) is defined

“Pluto is a planet and not an asteroid.”

“By definition, the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 was a case of international aggression”

Definition and example of grounds

observations or sources used as evidence

Data: information on which a claim (or conclusion) is based

Stats, facts, experiments, testimonies, opinions, first-hand observations, etc.

Definition and example of claim

a conclusion (proposition) requiring further proof

X causes Y or Cats are less intelligent than dogs (a conclusion)

Backing

info that supports the warrant and helps legitimize the inferential leap

Backing elaborates upon the warrant and therefore “backs it”:

Warrant: The ability to learn tricks is a mark of intelligence identified in past scientific studies

Backing: According to Jones (2010), IQ tests for cats and dogs measure intelligence through obedience, memory, and task complexity.

Qualified (qualifiers) versus unqualified claims, and examples of each

statement identifying the degree of force an arguer believes a claim possesses. (in some cases, 18-22 yr olds, or huge generalization?)

Qualified claim: “In some cases, feeding wild birds harms them more than it helps them.”

Unqualified claim: “Feeding wild birds harms them more than it helps”

Definition, types, and examples of rebuttal

two forms: proactive and reactive

a. Refutation of an opponent’s claim

b. Refutation of an opponent’s potential claim, sometimes by conceding a charge and then putting it in a more accurate context or wording

c. preemptive (preemptive argument) - arguments that respond to a probable objection the opponent will make before they have the chance to raise them

Tests of factual examples and illustrations

source qualifications - was observer capable of making observations? a blind witness may have difficulty describing things

data accuracy - is it straightforward or manipulated?

originality of observation - obtained from first or second hand data?

recency of observation - the more recent, (generally) the more reliable

attitude of the observer - best sources have a neutral attitude

Roles of popular media sources in argumentation

Alert us of new events, issues, and developments in public affairs

Are often the very place (the mass mediated public sphere) where argumentation unfolds

Often reveal presumption and the existence of multiple perspectives on an issue or event

Show how salient—politically, culturally, emotionally, spiritually—an issue is to society at a given moment (they are primary historical evidence/raw material)

Examples of primary and secondary scholarly sources

primary - academic journal or paper, ideas appear for the first time

secondary - textbook, encyclopedia, restates information or summarizes

Difference between example and illustration

Use examples to prove a point, use illustrations to explain or visualize a point. Examples are efficient, while illustrations are descriptive and detailed.

Example: evidence briefly describing events that have occurred

Illustration: evidence that describes in detail events that have occurred

Principle of objectivity

an orientation toward observation in which the observer attempts to stay unbiased from emotion, politics, moral beliefs, inference, or personal interest

Direct versus indirect factual evidence

Direct factual evidence: descriptions of events, people, objects, places, or other phenomena made through the arguer’s personal observations

Indirect factual evidence: evidence obtained in the reported observations made by others

Factual evidence versus (expert) opinion evidence

Facts:information that can be verified as true or false with regard to accuracy and reliability

(Expert) Opinion: evidence consisting of descriptive or evaluative statements by an expert

How to determine if a source is scholarly or non-scholarly, as well as primary or secondary

scholarly v non-scholarly - peer reviewed, written by an expert, has a reference page, and is typically made for education

primary v secondary - are the ideas appearing for the first time? is it a summary or analysis?

Stock issues of factual argumentation, meaning of stock issues, and their purpose (see definition in Ch. 4)

stock issues - general questions that can be applied to the proposition to generate the questions that might help generate your case for your proposition

what info confirms or denies the proposition and the relationship it asserts?

what techniques of reasoning should be used to demonstrate the relationship?

-for example, argument from authority, cause-effect reasoning (argument from cause), both?

purpose is to meet research responsibility and your responsibility to reason with your audience

General purposes of factual argumentation

A factual proposition speech is a kind of persuasive speech that presents the major sides of an issue before concluding on what is likely true and false.

A factual proposition speech should argue for the probable truth or falsity of a factual proposition

Presumption (p. 174, and pp. 24-26 in chapter 2)

presumption can help build prima facia case

beliefs and behaviors that a field favors

It allocates the burden of proof, often requiring the opposing party to disprove the presumed fact.

Extemporaneous delivery and its challenges

useful in most speaking situations because of its conversational approach

-combines memorization and notecards

-no exact wording, only remember key points

challenges: comfort, consistency, practice, adaptation

primary inference

conclusion one draws about meaning of a proposition, based on the information contained in one’s definition of key terms

example in class was how Jane Austen being a feminist could have two different inferences

value judgment term

• the source of criteria to make the propositional judgment

• used to offer a measurement of the value object

• examples: “quality,” “useful,” “effective,” “wasteful,” “moral”

value judgment object

-the subject of the sentence example from class was Dr. Norie or British Museum

value hierarchy

organizes competing principles, beliefs, or goals by placing one in a position of superiority over another

if debating over the “best site” to house and display an historic set of marbles, what are the core values that define “best” and in what order?

stock issues

generic issues given by the textbook

• field invariant questions that must be answered if belief or behavior is to be changed

actual issues

found by identifying questions pivotal to the wording of one’s proposition; they investigate ambiguities in the wording

we find these by asking what do certain words mean

case development process

1. Locating the immediate cause of interest or concern

2. Investigating the history

3. Defining key terms and creating the primary inference

4. Determining the issues

Elaboration Likelihood model - two main routes:

• Central - thoroughly evaluate an argument's reasoning and evidence. Become highly involved

• Peripheral - shortcut. Use for efficiency. Using a simple cue (like a speaker’s credibility) to make it quicker

rhetoric

effective speaking patterns to convince someone of something. Strategic persuasion and a lot of different techniques to get the point across. Ex is Obama or Hitler (not always positive or negative)